Korean site publishes sample images from Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM

Korean website lcap.tistory.com has published what it claims are sample images from the new Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM lens, which purports to show its performance in a range of different shooting situations, on both a Canon EOS 600D and 5D Mark III. We doubt very much that the site had Sigma's permission to publish the images from a pre-production lens, but if you're curious, you can click the link below to go to the original 'preview' at lcap.tistory.com.

Good journalism also means ethical journalism. As DPReview infers in both the article and Barney's comment below, Sigma had not given ANY photography news websites permission to post photos taken with pre-production copies of its new lens. Look up the term "News Embargo," and think of it as a hardware company's version of a model release.

As an example, this is why you have been seeing DPR Previews of some cameras on the same day the camera is officially announced. They were given a copy of the camera long before, but on the condition that DPR could not talk about it until after the manufacturer officially announced its existence.

Rad: I'm fully aware of what the term "news embargo" means, as I am a journalist by trade. There is much discussion in the world of journalism as to whether or not news embargoes should be honoured. Newspapers that I have worked at will break embargoes in some circumstances. For example, if a news outlet has no other source than the official one then they will generally honour an embargo. However, if they manage to obtain information (or,in this case, a lens) from a non-official source then many of them will break the embargo, citing third-party sources.

In the news summary you state that, 'We doubt very much that the site had Sigma's permission to publish the images from a pre-production lens...' and then go ahead and, effectively, encourage members here to look.

Whilst interest in the lens might be high right now, I am fairly certain that you would not like a third party to publish/use some of your own reports/test results without permission and before you had released them yourselves. Would you complain if someone did?

Do you mean that we shouldn't have pointed you towards an article elsewhere on the Internet?

Or do you mean that we should have asked permission from that site before posting a link to their article?

Or maybe you mean that we because we think that this site might have published pictures from this lens without asking Sigma first, we shouldn't have pointed you towards them?

This 'preview' has been doing the rounds since late last week. We saw it, spoke to Sigma, placed it in context (i.e. said loudly and clearly that this is probably a pre-prod lens), and posted a short news story. That's all.

My point is your third option, of course. And, if I now read you correctly, you are saying that you drew the attention of Sigma to this 'preview' before drawing our attention to it as members/users of DP Review.

Does that make a difference? It makes your position clearer, that is for sure, but telling someone that you will post something they might not like to see is not quite the same as asking if they mind.

In reading your original message, I was left with the impression that Sigma had not given you the go-ahead.

The reason why I find the tone of the original message strange is that you need to have a very good working relationship with manufacturers in order to secure pre-release models of lenses/cameras/kit. I have no doubt that you do have such a relationship with Sigma. Could messages such as the one in question test this relationship?

We have a great relationship with Sigma, and one which is important to both parties. We also have a responsibility to our readers, to give them access to content, both original and from elsewhere on the web, which Sigma understands.

I don't just buy the product but also "the company" in that post-purchase support affects our decisions. Well I have to say, in my country Sigma are very helpful!

This is an admission from someone who initially thought their DSLR pricing was idiotic, and their picket cam fans ranged from delusional to creepy (upon further reflection I was right about the DSLRs, and as for the other cams I now like them less...). Sigma have good customer support in my experience! This makes a difference I think.

Do not see many naysayers now these pics are up. Obviously will be of use to pros or people with lots of change that shoot crop cameras, That extra crop setting on the D7100 looks even better now.Just because I can not afford or justify what this lens will cost is no reason to slight an obvious leap in lens design.

Wow! Seriously impressive performance. Finally, Sigma is being recognised as a producer of very, very fine lenses. Haven't seen any pricing info, but this lens will not be cheap. I'm thinking along the lines of the GDP of a third-world country to claim ownership of one of these. Would be sweet on my D7100 though.........

Looks very nice, not only sharp, but the colors and out-of-focus rendering is very nice as well. Quite sure this Sigma will be THE best crop zoom lens of this moment (probably one of the most expensive as well :-( )

...because this Sigma zoom could give users a very interesting option that isn't available in Canon/Nikon's lineups. Staying purely within Nikon/Canon's setups:-> you can get a 17-55/2.8, which goes a little longer, but is more than a stop slower (and a stop of extra light makes a difference!)-> you can get a 35/1.8 (nikon) or a 28/1.8 (canon/nikon) to match what Sigma delivers at the long end of this lens, but you can't get that kind of speed at the wide end staying within the Canon/Nikon lineups. There's a 20/2.8, but that still >1 stop slower.

Canon/Nikon might have impressive looking catalogues, but that doesn't mean their lens lineups cover everything, or that there's no room for improvement. I think this lens is an excellent example of a "hole" in Canon/Nikon's APS-C lineups.